Gentoo Archives: gentoo-amd64

From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
To: gentoo-amd64@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-amd64] Re: openoffice 2 compiles?
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 08:43:52
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-amd64] openoffice 2 compiles? by Chris Smart
Chris Smart posted <437050B6.7000208@××××××××××××.net>, excerpted below, 
on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 18:16:06 +1100:

> Dmitri Pogosyan wrote: > >>The claim is amd64 compilation is planned for 2.0.2 >> >> > cheers, for some reason I thought you could compile it on an amd64 arch > but not as an actual 64bit app (ie in 32bit mode using emul).
You should be able to compile it as 32-bit, tho from what I've read it's easier to do the 32-bit chroot and do it there than chase down whatever 32-bit stuff on 64-bit outside of a chroot. Among other things, the java stuff is problematic, again, from what I've read. For both running the binary package and for compiling from source, the Java stuff tries to use 64-bit Java, which naturally won't work trying to link that against 32-bit OOo. Do it in the chroot, and it can't see anything 64-bit, so it can't link against it. It has no choice but to go 32-bit. Of course, the problem is that if this is your first and only 32-bit app you really want to compile, doing an entire chroot just for it is a /lot/ of work. In that case, even I'd probably go with the 32-bit pre-packaged binary. Now what might be the /interesting/ way to do it, for those that have several machines including some x86 machines, would be to compile it from source on them, then try to move it over. (As usual, be very careful about merging 32-bit packages, binary or not, on 64-bit -- they say don't do it at all, but if you manually verify that it's not overwriting anything 64-bit, and manually verify dependencies, it /might/ be made to work. If it breaks, tho, you get to keep the pieces!) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in -- gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list